16
I can’t really offer much insight into the reliability of the website you’ve linked, but if you’re really keen to verify what is posted there, you could run your own node, and then find/write some code to index and organize all addresses by their balance. More generally, questions asking about the reliability of a certain website or service are off-topic ...
7
A lot of people who accumulated thousands of coins in the early days spent them on silly things or cashed out during the 2012 bubble. Lazlo for example, spent 10,000 bitcoins on two pizzas. Nobody knew that bitcoin would rise to the prices we briefly saw in 2013 or that we have today. The same thing will happen again, people have a price and will very ...
5
The Ardor launch will happen in 2017, but the distribution of the main ARDR tokens will be based on the Nxt 1.0 balances. And yes, as far as I know it is the first scalable blockchain platform using 100% proof of stake.
Starting the next 14th of July, the Nxt network will take a snapshot of all the account balances every hour. This will last for three ...
4
Arguments of Nxt creator are written here - https://nxtforum.org/initial-distribution/initial-distribution-of-100-pos-currencies/:
Initial distribution of the coins and the forging schedule are more
serious problems than they appear at first glance. A 100%
proof-of-stake currency needs at least a small part of the coins to be
distributed in the ...
3
A few projects have done this (although more recently with EOS and Ethereum). The only notable one I can remember off the top of my head is Clamcoin:
Every person who had Bitcoin at block 300,377, Litecoin at block 565,693, or Dogecoin at block 218,556 was given ~4.6 CLAM.
This has spawned a few digging services over the years, where you can upload old ...
3
The creator, Satoshi Nakamoto (referred to as a "he" hereafter even though it might be a woman or a group of individuals), seems to have mined many of the early Bitcoin blocks. There have been several analyses identifying blocks mined by a specific single program, based on the nonce and so on, and it is mostly rational to assert that this was Satoshi.
There ...
3
It doesn't matter if a mining pool has 100% of the total mining power so long as that mining pool can't choose which transactions its users work on, prevent them from submitting blocks that they find, or choose which blocks they build from. No change is needed to the Bitcoin protocol as far as I know. Only the protocol used between pools and their clients ...
3
As Bitcoin is a digital-specie currency, if it replaced all fiat currencies it would be the equivalent of reverting to a (digital) gold standard and can be answered in much the same way.
Firstly, a gold standard is deflationary. Explaining this again and again is tedious, so I'll summarise:
People provide goods or services to others and receive IOUs for ...
2
No, this is basically impossible. What you're saying is that we would have stable, predictable deflation that could be relied on. This is not possible because it creates a direct contradiction.
Think about it -- which is worth more: One bitcoin today or one bitcoin next year?
Clearly, one bitcoin today must be worth more because one of the things you can ...
2
All Bitcoin transactions are public, in the sense that everyone can see which addresses sent and received the coins. (However, this includes no information about who owns the addresses.) This is an essential part of the Bitcoin protocol: you can verify the validity of a transaction that sends coins to you, by tracing the "chain of custody" of those coins all ...
2
If every block subsidizes the forger with extra coins (in addition to the fees) then bigger accounts become even bigger by following the compound interest curve. In a currency with selfish forgers most of the coins would be absorbed by very few accounts that would lead to centralization of the currency.
This was predicted (https://nxtforum.org/alternate-...
2
I remmeber there was BitcoinTalkCoin - the one with BCC ticker, in fact there were few sharing the same idea). They successfully "airdropped" the coins to BTT users, registered before the coin anouncement. I received some myself :) although it was pennies, you can say that the mission was accomplished.
2
Try searching BitCoinTalk.org, it has messages from Satoshi going back to late 2009, so I would assume if these messages existed they would be there.
2
The only people that make money directly from the Bitcoin network are miners; as a reward for helping run and secure the network.
There is no connection between the creator and the Bitcoin network. There never have been since the same rules apply to all. Satoshi and other early miners got a lot of bitcoins quite easily early on (similar to investing in a ...
1
Each output can only be spent atomically. Either the entire amount or not at all.
The scripts are not evaluated for any “amount”. The script machine evaluates to true or false.
Of course, it is possible to spend this multisig output to multiple other outputs, each with a separate amount and output script (spending destination).
1
The amount of bitcion in circulation does not increase or decrease based on human population. So, yes, it will likely be distributed more sparsely among people if the world's population increases.
However, bitcoin is only divisible to 8 decimal places, and your example uses 10. It's also difficult to say what role Bitcoin will play as far as global ...
1
"Widely" distributed and "fairly" distributed are two completely different things.
"Fair" means that the mechanism by which the initial distribution was determined is fair, regardless of who ends up with more coins. You could have a fair coin which ends up wholly in the hands of one person, if he earned those coins legitimately and fairly. And you could ...
1
As you noted, a lot of this depends on how you define your terms. In an Objectivist sense, all currencies are equally fair. :)
If we look at fairness in terms of information disparity, we can see some clear winners and losers. Information disparity is important because if insiders know that their coin is technically sound before the general public does, ...
1
Here's a huge infographic concerning distribution. You may also check out the distribution of companies in the globe.
For early posts, only bitcointalk (and, after a while, reddit) can be of help. There was a huge debate during the Occupy movement, as many individuals there thought the distribution wasn't "fair".
1
Proof of work in Bitcoin has two distinct purposes: To issue coins, and to synchronize transactions.
In NXT, PoW for synchronization was eschewed, the stated purpose being reducing long-term energy usage and ecologic harm. They're using PoS instead.
For some reason, probably misunderstanding the roles of PoW, they thought this means they also shouldn't use ...
1
From studying the Whitepaper it appears that there is no technical reason not to have block rewards, rather it appears to be a design decision that the sum of all assets is always zero: When Nxt's Genesis block was created, the Genesis account issued 1,000,000,000 NXT which were distributed to other accounts, hence rendering the account with a negative ...
1
1) Yes, as of now (v9.55.1) it's all at once. BUT, you can increase the issuance by issuing more later unless you "lock" the issuance.
2) So yes, there can be a custom distribution schedule. Example: start with 100, run a "stakeholder" vote via Counterparty broadcast or other method or decide by yourself as the issuer, then increase issuance to say 200. But,...
1
From what I can gather, there were a bunch of people who were able to claim auroracoins through the airdrop using SMS/Facebook based on various forums and social media outlets. In that sense the airdrop was successful. But who knows how many of the airdrops were legitimate. For all we know, most of the airdrop might have gone to the creators of the coins so ...
1
Ok, I'll take a shot at this.
We would need some kind of 'start work message' in the bitcoin system. For instance when miners start working on a block, they would have to broadcast a partial blockheader (minus the nonce) to the bitcoin network. This indicates that they have started to work on that block. Nodes (non-mining nodes) would store that partial ...
1
Mining pools are an important part of the Bitcoin ecosystem and I don't believe they should be disincentivized.
What does need to be done is to eliminate the inherent preference to mine only in the largest pool. This can be done with new mining pool reward frameworks such as Multi-PPS.
1
AFAIK there is nothing that can be done within the protocol to prevent 51% attacks. The best way to prevent such attacks from mining pools is to ditch that pool, and mine somewhere else. This happened earlier this year, when GHash.io almost reached 51% (source).
1
No, it's not definitively possible to determine ownership of bitcoins.
It may be possible to identify miner reward addresses that are inactively used, but accumulated regularly at one point. Search for addresses with a large balance, the outputs of which have never been spent or have a large amount of unspent outputs.
It may be possible to find patterns in ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible